Re: and when we're all rich, then what?

["Dr. Bruce McFarling" <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Barry Brooks <barrybrooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote,
on Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:26:56 -0500,


> The amount of work we do is a measure of how
> primitive our society is.


Not really, as if our society was truly primitive,
and occupying the prime real estate, not only
would there be far fewer of us, but

(a) each of us would be working fewer hours than
the full time employed work and

(b) each of us would have a better guarantee of
the opportunity to engage in higher status activity
than is presently available to the unemployed

Of course, there are far too many people on the
face of the earth to survive in truly primitive
conditions, but given that constraint, addressing
(a) by simply throwing people out of work and
giving them a social dividend is failing to
address (b).

In a society in which the primary high status
means for most people of increasing their income
is to work for pay, it is a social responsibility
to provide all people with the *opportunity* to
engage in socially recognised work for pay.
Giving people the means to survive without
working does not relieve that social responsibility.
Since the national government is, under our
institutions, the only organisation that can
feasibly offer that guarantee, this is a
responsibility of the national goverment.